I would bet just about anything that the store manager of the Woodlands store doesn't make that kind of money. maybe a regional manager, definitely some executives, but a store manager? No way.
when a company increases its value someone just gained wealth--and all the benefits that go along with that--despite it not paying the person a dime directly and thus not being taxed "income". I'm sorry I'm not an expert on Russian taxes. I did state that all taxes tax income either directly or indirectly so that answered your actual question. and the argument that because everyone else is jumping off a bridge we should do it too isn't the greatest for the "need" or "fairness" based argument for taxing rich people. I don't know what the best form of taxation is but that doesn't matter for this. "Fairness" has nothing to do with taxing rich people--even if the tax was a huge one-- because you aren't taxing their net worth. They aren't actually taxed until they sell. its not actually hurting them that much. But it does hurt the little guy called "rich,"
Maybe after bonuses and being with the company for 20 years, but definitely not a consistent across the board. Grocery store managers hit on up to 100k, but if you put into account the time they put in, they are not making much at all.
taking tax levels back to where they were under reagan, bush I, and clinton is not villifiying the rich
You clearly have no idea. I don't know about Discount Tire, but I know how much store managers, regional managers, and assistant regional managers make. You would be amazed at how much regional managers make.
nice. if you don't like it leave. I'm not debating the idea of a progressive tax system, either, i never mentioned that. I am against the notion that you need to raise taxes on the higher income people. Afterall, that's what this threat is about...right? and the higher income people DO shoulder a great deal of their responsibilites with regards to tax revenue for the govt. they shouldn't...no one should have to shoulder the responsibilites due to poor govt spending.
I'm pretty sure if you're clearing more than 10k a month you get to enjoy that money. More importantly I find your position very disturbing. Maybe you should "bother" out of sense of citizenship, helping out those less fortunate, contributing to the services we all use and need (like infrastructure and education). You still get the benefits of your labor (you're still bringing home quite a bit of scratch) although maybe you don't get quite as much as at a lower tax rate. The stuff has to be paid for and standing around griping that your particular piece of the pie should be slightly bigger seems so silly when we're talking about people who are already making a significant amount of cash (and I'm in this group myself so I'm not just volunteering someone else's money). Yep. We didn't grow at all between '42 and '62. CLEARING 2500 a week is not rich? Please. You can afford a 500k house, two cars, vacations, and anything else you want. Simply not true. Many people choose their professions because of the work, not the money. That's true of lawyers, doctors, and all other professions. My wife always wanted to be a lawyer and that started far before she was cognizant of the monetary benefit. That many lawyers don't work for big firms and don't make big firm salaries also denies your position. Seriously, think about what you can do clearing 10k a month. Yes, maybe you can't drive a ferrari, but c'mon - materially you are in the top 2% of the world in income. If you don't think that's rich then you're fooling yourself. Remember I said CLEAR 10k a month. So gross earnings would be significantly higher.
Never said it didn't. We grew in spite of those tax rates. Just basic economics here folks. No one is dumb enough to raise them that high again. Even Obama is keeping them under 40%.
If we grew that much despite very high taxes, what does that do to your argument that higher taxes stop growth? Oops.
I never said it stopped growth completely, even with the stupidest policies (which this one is) economies can still grow. Even communist Russia could grow its economy at times. Economies even grew with protectionism. Nice reading skills though. The genius economists of the BBS should tell all these countries that their economists are stupid: Maximum marginal tax rates by year 1979 1990 2002 Argentina 45 30 35 Australia 62 48 47 Austria 62 50 50 Belgium 76 55 52 Bolivia 48 10 13 Botswana 75 50 25 Brazil 55 25 28 Canada (Ontario) 58 47 46 Chile 60 50 43 Colombia 56 30 35 Denmark 73 68 59 Egypt 80 65 40 Finland 71 43 37 France 60 52 50 Germany 56 53 49 Greece 60 50 40 Guatemala 40 34 31 Hong Kong 25* 25 16 Hungary 60 50 40 India 60 50 30 Indonesia 50 35 35 Iran 90 75 35 Ireland 65 56 42 Israel 66 48 50 Italy 72 50 52 Jamaica 58 33 25 Japan 75 50 50 South Korea 89 50 36 Malaysia 60 45 28 Mauritius 50 35 25 Mexico 55 35 40 Netherlands 72 60 52 New Zealand 60 33 39 Norway 75 54 48 Pakistan 55 45 35 Philippines 70 35 32 Portugal 84 40 40 Puerto Rico 79 43 33 Russia NA 60 13 Singapore 55 33 26 Spain 66 56 48 Sweden 87 65 56 Thailand 60 55 37 Trinidad and Tobago 70 35 35 Turkey 75 50 45 United Kingdom 83 40 40 United States 70 33 39**
It is definitely not anywhere close to rich. Almost any married couple with both people having college degrees and a professional job bring home that much. That is a lot of households that would be considered rich. Oh, and by the way. Where I live, $500k gets you a lower end 1BR condo not to mention a $500 monthly condo fee. It's relative.
OK, high taxes don't stop growth. We agree on that. Where does it leave us when the example is a period where we had massive sustained growth '42 to '62 and high taxes. How you defend a position that high taxes and high growth can't go together (or however you want to phrase your claim)?
You don't make an argument as to why that isn't rich (although I was thinking about one earner, it doesn't really change the equation). Please elaborate.
Again, I didn't say they can't go together. Economies grew before there was free trade. Economies have grown under communist rule. The point is it's bad economic policy.
How's this. My wife and I make more than that and still can't afford a decent home in this area unless of course we decide to cut back on retirement/savings. Sure, people can appear rich if they spend every last penny they bring home and don't plan for the future. There is no way people can afford the stuff you mentioned AND responsibly save for retirement making $120k. You're idea of rich is pretty much what I think of as a basic middle class life, except your comment about affording "anything else they want." I don't think of the middle class as rich. I think of the upper class as rich. Am I wrong?
It seems like these tax the rich arguments always come down to someone's definition of rich. I think we need to take a hard look at what is considered "rich" in the United States. Its often a very regional outlook on income as well (NY, NY takes a lot more money than Houston, TX). I don't have the solution, but nailing HENRY'S and small business folks is not the answer either. We also don't need to continue squeezing the rank and file corporate workers that make good incomes, but are getting sqeezed on every side already when it comes to health care, taxes, corporate cut back, etc.
Sure, keep retreating. You said they were 'anti-growth' yet you also concede that growth can happen independent of the tax rates. It's pointless to say 'oh we shouldn't have high taxes because they are anti-growth' if we clearly can grow on a massive scale with high taxes.
